It used to be said by a certain learned professor opposed to departure from old and familiar paths, “Gentlemen, all progress is change, but not all change is progress.”

In every department of human affairs, in every quarter of the civilized world, the contrast between conditions in the late eighties and the present time is amazing—not conditions only but the difference in attitudes, in beliefs, in human relations. We may well ask ourselves, Whither? Certainly it is incumbent upon us to consider the character of these changes—whether they are making for progress—and what steps we are taking or can take to meet them. I ask you to consider with me two aspects of this question, one affecting industrial and the other international relations. In each case the proposals heretofore offered to meet the situation appear to fall into one of two categories, the first mechanistic, the second educative; the first, an attempt to meet a new situation by introducing new devices of control; the second by a process of education to modify or change men's attitude and belief.

A nation, in its immaturity, is prone to look only at the more apparent features of its existence; as it grows in power it views with complacency the respect paid to its prowess, the authority which it is able to enforce and the volume of commerce it maintains. By its conduct and attitude the policies of foreign states are fixed; its navy controls the seas; its army threatens its neighbors; its merchants roam through the more remote quarters of the earth; its legislators establish laws for multitudes without its borders; its ambassadors are consulted at every Court; its rulers gain the regard and affection: of rival potentates and princes. How to achieve these results, so patent to the observer, forms the theme of many arguments; but how few of the people realize what obligations and effects are reciprocally imposed upon them themselves; how their development, temperament and institutions may be varied, favored or thwarted by their relations with foreign states.

There is little need to point out the growing strength of the British Labor party. At the recent general elections, it achieved approximately one-third of both the House of Commons and the popular vote; and the fact that at the preceding election it had rolled up twenty-two per cent of the House and thirty per cent of the ballots proves that its recent achievement was not merely occasional. Throughout Great Britain there is thoughtful consideration as to whether Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald will prove as able a prime minister as he proved a leader of His Majesty's Opposition.

What may not be so widely appreciated is that the British Labor party is fundamentally, in fact no less than in theory, a socialist party. At its annual conference held in June, 1923, the following resolution was proposed:

“This Conference … asserts that the supreme object of the Labour Party should be the supersession of Capitalism by the Socialist Commonwealth … ;” and with hundreds of delegates representing several million members, the resolution was passed unanimously. Indeed, as the chairman, Sidney Webb, remarked in putting the resolution to a vote, it was largely unnecessary, for everyone in Great Britain recognized that the British Labour party was a socialist movement.

American political theorists have long assumed that the various governmental units composing the United States act only in accordance with the powers bestowed upon them by constitutions and conforming laws of their respective jurisdictions. But in recent years they have received an electric shock through the development of “government by special consent.” Basically, the new principle means that a supervisory authority can in reality exercise rights over persons and property not brought under its wing by the constitution under which it operates—provided certain public agencies or private parties agree to the extension. This practice, which has not yet received philosophical treatment, has enabled the several governments of the Union to conquer new worlds without resorting to the long, difficult, and unwieldy process of constitutional amendment. The novel method of transfer by agreement is both rapid and flexible. But why, one is led to inquire, do independent bodies surrender portions of their “sovereignty” to other groups? Certainly not through mere altruism. They do it “for value received,” be it financial aid, convenience, advertising advantages, or other rewards. In all ages, from biblical days to the latest moment, birthrights have been sold for “pottage.”

Financial pottage needs no introduction to most American observers. They are well aware that various states in the Union, for example, have agreed to accept national control over their internal roads, educational affairs, forestry, agriculture, and other matters in exchange for monetary assistance from the federal government. Such transfers of authority for cash are of mutual benefit.